The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
I am very pessimistic. I doubt that even this proposal would work. Russia and its delusions need to be defeated and be seen to be defeated, if there is to be even a chance of a reset. But how on earth is that going to happen?
I fear that Russia will retreat into its Stalinist past, Ukraine will be destroyed in the way that Syria was destroyed, people will die in the most appalling circumstances and those who have got out will stay out for much longer than we or they anticipate.
It will be a new Cold War and we will be lucky if the hot war in Ukraine does not extend elsewhere.
I mainly wrote this to see if there was any possible way out and in response to the discussion the other day about possible solutions over Crimea etc.
To cheer myself up even further, given that Sellafield and BaE are not a million miles from where I'm living, we're certainly prime targets for a nuclear strike. Still, better than surviving in an irradiated wasteland I suppose.
More generally, when the USSR broke up, the West simply assumed the boundaries of the SSRs should be the boundaries of the completely new countries.
This created war in Armenia & Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, war in Georgia over Ossetia & Abkhasia, war in Russia over Chechnya, war in Moldova over Transnistria, war in Ukraine over Crimea/Donbas,
Many of these ethnic conflicts long predated the USSR or even Imperial Russia. The wars did not happen just because of Russian meddling, though that did exacerbate them.
The boundary disputes should all have been resolved by UN plebiscites. We are now going to pay a very heavy price for not insisting on this simple point much earlier.
It should be a condition of NATO membership/EU membership that boundary disputes are resolved by calling plebiscites.
Minority ethnic groups can call for border polls in disputed areas & the polls are carried out with independent observers (much like the settlement in N. Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement).
Arguments about boundaries in Eastern Europe created WW1 and WW2. On our present trajectory, we are going for the hat trick.
Ukraine had a plebiscite. Every region voted for independence from Russia. In the Donbass, 81% voted for independence.
John Major was Prime Minister then.
It is perfectly reasonable for the matter to be revisited.
> 30 years is a definition of a generation that might even get past HYUFD.
And if they'd voted for a government that wanted to revisit it, you might even have a point.
They didn't.
I think peoples in a disputed territory have a right to call and hold a border poll. It is obviously not the case that the whole country gets to decide.
Let us suppose -- as seems to be the prevailing pb.com orthodoxy -- that Ukraine would have easily won a poll in the Donbas.
Then, it was very stupid not to have held one in accord with Minsk II.
1991 is not so far removed from 1998. The Belfast Agreement was endorsed by a clear majority North and South. It's clear that most people in Northern Ireland would currently vote to remain in the UK. Why have a further vote when it's clear what the result would be?
Is it clear what the result would be?
I think the reason why the Scots were allowed to have a referendum is precisely because English politicians like Cameron & Clegg thought "it was clear what the result would be".
The campaign changed peoples minds rather dramatically.
My guess is a border poll in N Ireland would be very close -- especially if the Nationalists run a better campaign than the Unionists.
The Scottish nationalists won an election pledging a referendum.
Irish and "Russian" nationalists have not.
Is this so difficult for you to understand? What's your problem with democracy, Vlad?
The plebiscites were part of Minsk 2, which democratically elected Ukrainian politicians signed up to.
No, they weren't. You're making that up Vlad. Please cite chapter and verse what part of Minsk II required a border poll with Russia, especially when the Russian-backed separatists were still causing violence.
After SpaceX supplied Starlink terminals to Ukraine and switched the system on in Ukraine, Dimitri Rogozin (fuckwit in charge of fucking up Russian space technology) complained that SpaceX is supplying Starlink to Ukraine and he questions why a “purely civilian” operation like SpaceX would do that.
Where do interest rates peak, how many will be in negative equity or lose their homes?
Shades of 1990
Though that mainly affects those with large mortgages not over 65s who own their homes outright
You're a Tory councillor iirc, the Conservatives Thoroughly, Thoroughly deserve to lose the next election if this is the sort of tone deaf response that's being trotted out.
I did not welcome it but that is just the reality.
Inflation needs to be brought under control by the Chancellor so interest rates don't rise too much and thus avoid hitting those with mortgages too hard.
However on the political point, remember in 1997 Blair even won over 65s as well as every age group below.
So if the Tories keep most over 65s they would still avoid a defeat as bad as 1997
Suspicious timing? Some serious questions to be answered on who is behind these guys:
Tony Diver@Tony_DiverExtinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security. 🙃
Suspicious timing? Some serious questions to be answered on who is behind these guys:
Tony Diver@Tony_DiverExtinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security. 🙃
US assessment is interesting, most notably, "US estimates of Russian military assets lost or inoperable range as high as 8-10 percent- close to double the estimate last week as US has gathered more information" with Ukraine suffering a similar percentage loss. Russia's early invasion forces in some areas will be hitting up to 30% losses, effectively putting them out of action, and as 100% of Russia's pre-staged forces are in, there's no immediate replacements available.
I think Putin will retain a good deal of support purely by pursuing a Trumpesque theme of "make Russia great again". Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West, and "strong leader who sorts it out" must have a big constituency. It's murderous nonsense, especially when it results in an invasion, but I don't doubt the support for it.
There is an odd mis-perception of what politics in Russia is like. It's not a giant gulag. If you demonstrate against the war, the police will drag you away, possibly beat you, and throw you in a cell for a day or two, and that in most cases seems to be it - nasty, but not life-threatening. There are several well-known exceptions which show total unscrupulousness when the regime feels like it but on the whole it's fairly standard authoritarian regime stuff, comparable with Turkey and a bunch of other places that we don't think about much. There has even been a fair amount of tolerance of liberal media in Moscow - we're reading about outlets being closed down or restricted, but I suspect most of us (including me) didn't know they were tolerated up to now.
On the other hand, it's easy to underestimate the total lack of information that most Russians have about issues outside their immediate experience. Many Russians have limited interest in travelling abroad or accessing foreign media, much like other big countries (travel around in Nebraska and ask folk when they next plan to visit France and you'll get some baffled looks). They know there's a war on and the West is angry, and no doubt hope the army will win soon without too much bloodshed and things will calm down.
The one group who really know what's going on and could do something about it is the military. They will be very frustrated with the problems in the war, but for the time being mainly focused on winning it. They may be tempted to sue for peace eventually, but for now I suspect their pressure is in the opposite direction - for systematic rather than sporadic bombardment of cities and none of this humanitarian corridor stuff. Hoping they seize power and get rid of Putin may not be sensible.
As I said in reply to Leon a couple of days ago, I see Putin as a czarist militarist and have no sympathy whatever for him or his war, although for family reasons I'm not instinctively anti-Russian. But ultimately he's a symptom rather than a cause, and we need to avoid feeding the idea that the West is out to encircle Russia and damage it as much as we can. We are largely spectators and should avoid becoming part of the problem. Our policy up to now - sanctions on Russia, defensive arms to Ukraine - feels right. But the objective should be to support a settlement that ends the killing and reduces the paranoia level - not to achieve a "victory" to leverage regime change in Russia - because ultimately that may mean fighting to the last Ukrainian to achieve a resulting change for the worse.
Eloquently put, but there comes a point when an invading army behaves so badly - commits so many atrocities - that its enemies demand revenge on the invader, above and beyond what is necessary for peace. This is triply true in the era of 24/7 news and social media, when every bombed-out orphanage and slaughtered old couple flashes around the world vividly, instantly and in lurid colour
Russia has probably crossed that fateful line already, or is close to doing so unless it stops soon
The 2m refugees already fled from Ukraine will want their vengeance, the west is likely to agree, I see no medium term future for Russia other than isolation, impoverishment and vassalage under China
"Oz Katerji @OzKaterji As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself."
I think Putin will retain a good deal of support purely by pursuing a Trumpesque theme of "make Russia great again". Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West, and "strong leader who sorts it out" must have a big constituency. It's murderous nonsense, especially when it results in an invasion, but I don't doubt the support for it.
There is an odd mis-perception of what politics in Russia is like. It's not a giant gulag. If you demonstrate against the war, the police will drag you away, possibly beat you, and throw you in a cell for a day or two, and that in most cases seems to be it - nasty, but not life-threatening. There are several well-known exceptions which show total unscrupulousness when the regime feels like it but on the whole it's fairly standard authoritarian regime stuff, comparable with Turkey and a bunch of other places that we don't think about much. There has even been a fair amount of tolerance of liberal media in Moscow - we're reading about outlets being closed down or restricted, but I suspect most of us (including me) didn't know they were tolerated up to now.
On the other hand, it's easy to underestimate the total lack of information that most Russians have about issues outside their immediate experience. Many Russians have limited interest in travelling abroad or accessing foreign media, much like other big countries (travel around in Nebraska and ask folk when they next plan to visit France and you'll get some baffled looks). They know there's a war on and the West is angry, and no doubt hope the army will win soon without too much bloodshed and things will calm down.
The one group who really know what's going on and could do something about it is the military. They will be very frustrated with the problems in the war, but for the time being mainly focused on winning it. They may be tempted to sue for peace eventually, but for now I suspect their pressure is in the opposite direction - for systematic rather than sporadic bombardment of cities and none of this humanitarian corridor stuff. Hoping they seize power and get rid of Putin may not be sensible.
As I said in reply to Leon a couple of days ago, I see Putin as a czarist militarist and have no sympathy whatever for him or his war, although for family reasons I'm not instinctively anti-Russian. But ultimately he's a symptom rather than a cause, and we need to avoid feeding the idea that the West is out to encircle Russia and damage it as much as we can. We are largely spectators and should avoid becoming part of the problem. Our policy up to now - sanctions on Russia, defensive arms to Ukraine - feels right. But the objective should be to support a settlement that ends the killing and reduces the paranoia level - not to achieve a "victory" to leverage regime change in Russia - because ultimately that may mean fighting to the last Ukrainian to achieve a resulting change for the worse.
The fact that the west cannot work with Russia, and appears to be heading towards mutual destruction through war is a complete tragedy. It is European civilisation destroying itself, before our eyes. And China is the beneficiary. They stand to inherit whatever is left at the end of it. I don't know what the answer is or how to stop it. I don't think anyone does.
Where do interest rates peak, how many will be in negative equity or lose their homes?
Shades of 1990
Though that mainly affects those with large mortgages not over 65s who own their homes outright
You're a Tory councillor iirc, the Conservatives Thoroughly, Thoroughly deserve to lose the next election if this is the sort of tone deaf response that's being trotted out.
Actually, it would be refreshing if a political party stood up to the interests of those who have bitten off more than they can chew with respect to buying a property.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
For sure. Although neither your first point about having a distorted view of the war and preferring to believe in their national myths, nor your second point about not having a cold look at their historical aggression, are unique to Russia.
Indeed. There is a comparison with Britain. The "Britain alone in 1940" myth for one. Ask Polish airmen. Or those nations which were then part of the Empire.
That's ridiculous. It isn't a myth. Of course, there were combatants from the Empire/Commonwealth and displaced folk from defeated countries made a very significant contribution - they are justly celebrated - but Britain was very largely fighting on her own until Hitler attacked the USSR and the USA entered the war.
In WW2, the British army peaked at 2.9m men, the Indian army alone peaked at 2.5m.
Dismissing the contribution of the Empire and Commonwealth as mere combatants whilst we were fighting on our own is pretty shameful.
I am aware of that. But the Indian Army was, largely, in India. No?
It did, of course, contribute significantly to the defeat of Japan and was active elsewhere. But it was not in a position to do all that much while the Battle of Britain raged.
It's a broadbrush statement, but Britain did stand alone for a period of time during WW2. And its not "pretty shameful" to remind ourselves of that fact.
No, it was spread over the globe far and wide, places like Iraq, Malaya, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Singapore. There were also Indian Army forces fighting in France and evacuated from Dunkirk.
Oh really? I thought it was just us v Germany, like 1966. Things one learns on PB.
The only way to win in this debate is not to play, but what a silly post. It is a boringly straightforward truth that for a time in 1940 Britain was largely alone in actively (or even passively) fighting Germany.
And I think there is something a bit G.A.Henty about your own mental warscape of loyal young fellows from all four corners of the empire rallying to the cause, hurrah. Did anything happen in 1947 which adds nuance to this picture?
In the long term the message to Russia should be clear. We in the west want to be your friends. China is a business partner who will screw you if it makes business sense. And culturally, economically, even geographically Russia leans west.
In the long term the message to Russia should be clear. We in the west want to be your friends. China is a business partner who will screw you if it makes business sense. And culturally, economically, even geographically Russia leans west.
Russia - I suspect is going to have to relearn that China is only in it for themselves.
I think Putin will retain a good deal of support purely by pursuing a Trumpesque theme of "make Russia great again". Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West, and "strong leader who sorts it out" must have a big constituency. It's murderous nonsense, especially when it results in an invasion, but I don't doubt the support for it.
There is an odd mis-perception of what politics in Russia is like. It's not a giant gulag. If you demonstrate against the war, the police will drag you away, possibly beat you, and throw you in a cell for a day or two, and that in most cases seems to be it - nasty, but not life-threatening. There are several well-known exceptions which show total unscrupulousness when the regime feels like it but on the whole it's fairly standard authoritarian regime stuff, comparable with Turkey and a bunch of other places that we don't think about much. There has even been a fair amount of tolerance of liberal media in Moscow - we're reading about outlets being closed down or restricted, but I suspect most of us (including me) didn't know they were tolerated up to now.
On the other hand, it's easy to underestimate the total lack of information that most Russians have about issues outside their immediate experience. Many Russians have limited interest in travelling abroad or accessing foreign media, much like other big countries (travel around in Nebraska and ask folk when they next plan to visit France and you'll get some baffled looks). They know there's a war on and the West is angry, and no doubt hope the army will win soon without too much bloodshed and things will calm down.
The one group who really know what's going on and could do something about it is the military. They will be very frustrated with the problems in the war, but for the time being mainly focused on winning it. They may be tempted to sue for peace eventually, but for now I suspect their pressure is in the opposite direction - for systematic rather than sporadic bombardment of cities and none of this humanitarian corridor stuff. Hoping they seize power and get rid of Putin may not be sensible.
As I said in reply to Leon a couple of days ago, I see Putin as a czarist militarist and have no sympathy whatever for him or his war, although for family reasons I'm not instinctively anti-Russian. But ultimately he's a symptom rather than a cause, and we need to avoid feeding the idea that the West is out to encircle Russia and damage it as much as we can. We are largely spectators and should avoid becoming part of the problem. Our policy up to now - sanctions on Russia, defensive arms to Ukraine - feels right. But the objective should be to support a settlement that ends the killing and reduces the paranoia level - not to achieve a "victory" to leverage regime change in Russia - because ultimately that may mean fighting to the last Ukrainian to achieve a resulting change for the worse.
The fact that the west cannot work with Russia, and appears to be heading towards mutual destruction through war is a complete tragedy. It is European civilisation destroying itself, before our eyes. And China is the beneficiary. They stand to inherit whatever is left at the end of it. I don't know what the answer is or how to stop it. I don't think anyone does.
When the Berlin Wall came down Gorbachev asked to join NATO. Putin also asked to join NATO. Both times it was seen as an absurd idea by the West which assumed that the globe would be happy with the US acting as global policeman.
Has Putin and the Russians felt "encircled"? Difficult and not for me to say without an examination of the situation in eastern Europe these past few decades. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
But in that time the West has aggressively targeted sovereign nations and invaded them because it could. Are Tony Blair and Dubya war criminals? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
This is absolutely and categorically not to excuse what is happening now in Ukraine but Putin has learned from the best as to how to conduct operations which satisfy domestic concerns with scant regard for international opinion.
"Oz Katerji @OzKaterji As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself."
Apparently he addressed them in their own language recently
This is excellent and it makes me proud to think that a British PM is so highly thought of in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Now can we please do something about Patel and the ridiculous obstruction of refugees.
Looks like the cabinet rounded on her to the extent the sponsorship scheme is now under Gove and Richard Harrington (been given a peerage) is in charge of refugees
Indeed what is the point of Patel - expect her to go in an early summer reshuffle
Where do interest rates peak, how many will be in negative equity or lose their homes?
At least Americans have the benefit of fixed mortgage interest rates for the whole term.
Really? Presumably they pay rates that are quite a bit higher than the Fed's base rate.
Current Freddie Mac US 30Year Mortgage Market Survey Rate Nationally is 3.76%, having been as low as 2.77% in August last year. Comparable 30Year Treasury was 2.22% - so a premium of about 1.5%.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
Nick just to say your posts on this crisis have been imo absolutely spot on and insightful these past days and weeks and this is another one such.
Edit: I am not a million miles off saluting your indefatifability.
Suspicious timing? Some serious questions to be answered on who is behind these guys:
Tony Diver@Tony_DiverExtinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security. 🙃
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
Given that it was annexed by the Federal Republic, it's not a very useful counterfactual for Russia, unless you are proposing a German occupation?
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
NATO say that is wrong.
Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War
Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.
The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."
Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."
I just read the very kind comments and likes from several posters, thank you. I am glad that people from across the political spectrum are finding my contributions helpful. PTPs comment about Alistair Cooke did make me blush: he was a commentator who really was the very best. Anyway, back to work.
You are very welcome Cicero but please note that I am not in the habit of calling geese swans, so blush away all you like.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
The point being that it happened. There was a broader enlargement whether there was a publicly-made guarantee or not. Plus at the time I'm sure the conversations with Baker were in the context of Gorbachev's recent request to join NATO. Dismissed as a "dream". For some reason.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
A lot of folk worrying about IHT can save themselves the bother now. Inflation, especially energy inflation, is going to solve the problem of all those stacks of supposed inheritance cash lying around waiting for Sunak to lay his grubby mitts on.
It’s the “lawyers” (sic) I feel sorry for.
Most UK inheritance is in houses.
UK Housing £9.2T [1] UK Deposits £3.5T [2] UK Gilts £1.9T [3] Value of FTSE £1.8T [4]
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
For sure. Although neither your first point about having a distorted view of the war and preferring to believe in their national myths, nor your second point about not having a cold look at their historical aggression, are unique to Russia.
Indeed. There is a comparison with Britain. The "Britain alone in 1940" myth for one. Ask Polish airmen. Or those nations which were then part of the Empire.
That's ridiculous. It isn't a myth. Of course, there were combatants from the Empire/Commonwealth and displaced folk from defeated countries made a very significant contribution - they are justly celebrated - but Britain was very largely fighting on her own until Hitler attacked the USSR and the USA entered the war.
In WW2, the British army peaked at 2.9m men, the Indian army alone peaked at 2.5m.
Dismissing the contribution of the Empire and Commonwealth as mere combatants whilst we were fighting on our own is pretty shameful.
I am aware of that. But the Indian Army was, largely, in India. No?
It did, of course, contribute significantly to the defeat of Japan and was active elsewhere. But it was not in a position to do all that much while the Battle of Britain raged.
It's a broadbrush statement, but Britain did stand alone for a period of time during WW2. And its not "pretty shameful" to remind ourselves of that fact.
No, it was spread over the globe far and wide, places like Iraq, Malaya, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Singapore. There were also Indian Army forces fighting in France and evacuated from Dunkirk.
Sigh. Much of that was later, after Japan entered the war. There were, of course, imperial troops in the Middle East but, again, it was mainly a British effort. In any event El Alamein didn't take place until late 1942, two years after the Battle of Britain, for instance.
Besides there being no evidence that NATO or anyone else promised in any formal sense that NATO would never expand into Eastern Europe, just think about how rash a promise that would be? You would have sold out Eastern Europe, and Russia would have been free to bully those countries into submission.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
Nick just to say your posts on this crisis have been imo absolutely spot on and insightful these past days and weeks and this is another one such.
Edit: I am not a million miles off saluting your indefatifability.
In East Germany, West Germany demolished the existing government institutions quite thoroughly. And built new ones, which were mostly extensions of existing Western ones. Lots of East folk felt they were being colonised.
In the case of Russia, we let them do their thing, largely.
In the long term the message to Russia should be clear. We in the west want to be your friends. China is a business partner who will screw you if it makes business sense. And culturally, economically, even geographically Russia leans west.
Not sure if that is true, Russia is statist, nationalist and authoritarian under Putin, much like China is statist, nationalist and authoritarian under Xi.
Indeed arguably economically at least China was moving closer to the West after the Hong Kong handover and under Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao than Russia ever did under any Russian President, even Yeltsin and Gorbachev
Believe it or not I'm not actually paid by anyone to post here - I get paid to prepare accounts & projections for an SME, we buy metal and use gas. So do our suppliers.
I sense we're all a bit fucking bored with this war now and are nostalgic for the heady, golden days of last week when anything seemed possible.
Who remembers the failed heliborne assault on Hostomel airport? The Hinds fell like tears in the rain. Those were the days.
There are only so many times the news can report on Russia pounding civilian targets in Ukraine before it ceases to be news. And there is only so long you can look into the terrifying abyss.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
The problem with this is that it denies the right of self-determination. It's all about spheres of influence. So long as the Poles, Balts, etc, had reason to fear Russia they were always going to seek protection.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Do you think the people of the Baltic States think it "extremely short sighted"?
Would they be happier today if they were not members of NATO?
I sense we're all a bit fucking bored with this war now and are nostalgic for the heady, golden days of last week when anything seemed possible.
Who remembers the failed heliborne assault on Hostomel airport? The Hinds fell like tears in the rain. Those were the days.
Who controls Hostomel at the moment ?
BBC reported on the evacuation of the hospital in Hostomel last night, as the Ukrainians were forced to withdraw, so I presume the Russians now hold the airport too.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
I sense we're all a bit fucking bored with this war now and are nostalgic for the heady, golden days of last week when anything seemed possible.
Who remembers the failed heliborne assault on Hostomel airport? The Hinds fell like tears in the rain. Those were the days.
I find myself increasingly nostalgic for those innocent carefree days of the pandemic, when all we had to do was avoid dying a horrible gasping death in an historic global plague. We were so young and blithe with our funny masks and sanitisers, so carefree and heedless as we stayed home for two years. We had no idea of the horror approaching
*ON TOPIC What to do when you corner a rat, and in turns on you? Just stamp on its head till it goes squish. Drown it in a bucket. Pick it up by its tail, wave it’s head against wall. And then go and get your rabies jabs asap.
I don't really know why one would want to corner a rat, unless one is a sadist. It's not an efficient extermination method to corner individual rats.
I had pet rats as a child. They are really delightful and charming animals and I am finding this whole discussion rather horrible!
Are you sure it was not a filigree Siberian hamster?
Stamping on its head is effective if there is no other option.
Normally catch it in a trap and shoot it with an air pistol.
Or take it into the corner of a sack and use a priest. *
A lot of folk worrying about IHT can save themselves the bother now. Inflation, especially energy inflation, is going to solve the problem of all those stacks of supposed inheritance cash lying around waiting for Sunak to lay his grubby mitts on.
It’s the “lawyers” (sic) I feel sorry for.
Most UK inheritance is in houses.
UK Housing £9.2T [1] UK Deposits £3.5T [2] UK Gilts £1.9T [3] Value of FTSE £1.8T [4]
Yes. A prolonged period of inflation would draw huge numbers of estates above the Inheritance Tax threshold. It is very good news for lawyers.
Interest rates up, cost of living up. House prices can’t keep rising forever.
They can in London and the Home Counties, even if maybe not so high as pre pandemic with more WFH and at a slower rate.
London is a global city and it and its environs will always have high demand. Interest rates also affect those most with big mortgages, not those who can buy outright or largely mortgage free as moving up the chain or benefit from assistance or inheritance from their family who already own their own homes
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
For sure. Although neither your first point about having a distorted view of the war and preferring to believe in their national myths, nor your second point about not having a cold look at their historical aggression, are unique to Russia.
Indeed. There is a comparison with Britain. The "Britain alone in 1940" myth for one. Ask Polish airmen. Or those nations which were then part of the Empire.
That's ridiculous. It isn't a myth. Of course, there were combatants from the Empire/Commonwealth and displaced folk from defeated countries made a very significant contribution - they are justly celebrated - but Britain was very largely fighting on her own until Hitler attacked the USSR and the USA entered the war.
In WW2, the British army peaked at 2.9m men, the Indian army alone peaked at 2.5m.
Dismissing the contribution of the Empire and Commonwealth as mere combatants whilst we were fighting on our own is pretty shameful.
I am aware of that. But the Indian Army was, largely, in India. No?
It did, of course, contribute significantly to the defeat of Japan and was active elsewhere. But it was not in a position to do all that much while the Battle of Britain raged.
It's a broadbrush statement, but Britain did stand alone for a period of time during WW2. And its not "pretty shameful" to remind ourselves of that fact.
No, it was spread over the globe far and wide, places like Iraq, Malaya, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Singapore. There were also Indian Army forces fighting in France and evacuated from Dunkirk.
Oh really? I thought it was just us v Germany, like 1966. Things one learns on PB.
The only way to win in this debate is not to play, but what a silly post. It is a boringly straightforward truth that for a time in 1940 Britain was largely alone in actively (or even passively) fighting Germany.
And I think there is something a bit G.A.Henty about your own mental warscape of loyal young fellows from all four corners of the empire rallying to the cause, hurrah. Did anything happen in 1947 which adds nuance to this picture?
I bet the almost 200k Poles who made strenuous efforts to get to the UK when it 'stood alone' felt totes validated by 1945.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
We really need more analysis of the short term hit to the Russian economy. The sanctions seem impressive but what will this mean to everyday Russians now?
Extract from a depressing email from a Russian (former) colleague.
It has been a complete and utter disaster that have not been seen in Russia since 1917. It has been the worst two weeks in my life. I now completely understand the feelings of people who survived the revolution of 1917 when the entire life (and the future) is unravelling....
...I am not a political activist, (i.e. I do not participate in meetings at the risk of detention and do not post any anti-war slogans on my FB page), so I am afraid that I do not deserve any praise. Moreover, as most of the Russian educated middle class, I am thinking of emigrating from Russia if the possibility opens up, so if you or your colleagues or your clients are hiring, please let me know).
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
The noisy man of Scotpol Cole-Hamilton showing how it's done.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Heeeeelrooo - Chernobyl's second act is going to unfold..
SSSCIP Ukraine @dsszzi Update on Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant:
750 kV ChNPP - Kyiv high-voltage line is currently disconnected due to the damage caused by the occupiers.
As a result, the Chernobyl station and all nuclear facilities in the Exclusion Zone are without electricity.
About 20,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the spent nuclear fuel storage facility-1. They need constant cooling. Which is possible only if there is electricity. If it is not there, the pumps will not cool. As a result, the temperature in the holding pools will increase.
After that evaporation will occur, that will lead to nuclear discharge.
The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe.
In addition, there is no ventilation inside the facility.
All personnel there will receive a dangerous dose of radiation.
The fire extinguishing system also does not work, and this is a huge risk of fire caused by shelling.
The fight still goes on making it impossible to carry out repairs and restore power.
*ON TOPIC What to do when you corner a rat, and in turns on you? Just stamp on its head till it goes squish. Drown it in a bucket. Pick it up by its tail, wave it’s head against wall. And then go and get your rabies jabs asap.
I don't really know why one would want to corner a rat, unless one is a sadist. It's not an efficient extermination method to corner individual rats.
I had pet rats as a child. They are really delightful and charming animals and I am finding this whole discussion rather horrible!
Was it called Basil? Did it end up in the Ratatouille 😝
I guess you could say same about humans, we know some humans are really quite delightful and charming - but would you say that about Putin - so I was only talking about the bad ones.
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
For sure. Although neither your first point about having a distorted view of the war and preferring to believe in their national myths, nor your second point about not having a cold look at their historical aggression, are unique to Russia.
Indeed. There is a comparison with Britain. The "Britain alone in 1940" myth for one. Ask Polish airmen. Or those nations which were then part of the Empire.
That's ridiculous. It isn't a myth. Of course, there were combatants from the Empire/Commonwealth and displaced folk from defeated countries made a very significant contribution - they are justly celebrated - but Britain was very largely fighting on her own until Hitler attacked the USSR and the USA entered the war.
In WW2, the British army peaked at 2.9m men, the Indian army alone peaked at 2.5m.
Dismissing the contribution of the Empire and Commonwealth as mere combatants whilst we were fighting on our own is pretty shameful.
I am aware of that. But the Indian Army was, largely, in India. No?
It did, of course, contribute significantly to the defeat of Japan and was active elsewhere. But it was not in a position to do all that much while the Battle of Britain raged.
It's a broadbrush statement, but Britain did stand alone for a period of time during WW2. And its not "pretty shameful" to remind ourselves of that fact.
No, it was spread over the globe far and wide, places like Iraq, Malaya, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Singapore. There were also Indian Army forces fighting in France and evacuated from Dunkirk.
Oh really? I thought it was just us v Germany, like 1966. Things one learns on PB.
The only way to win in this debate is not to play, but what a silly post. It is a boringly straightforward truth that for a time in 1940 Britain was largely alone in actively (or even passively) fighting Germany.
And I think there is something a bit G.A.Henty about your own mental warscape of loyal young fellows from all four corners of the empire rallying to the cause, hurrah. Did anything happen in 1947 which adds nuance to this picture?
I bet the almost 200k Poles who made strenuous efforts to get to the UK when it 'stood alone' felt totes validated by 1945.
And the reason for struggling to get to the UK was, it was the place that was standing alone. I think there were other major players involved by 1945.
Starmer did a good job on Johnson. Listening to BJ's cod churchill 6th q reply I think he was expecting a whole 6 questions statesmanlike agreement
We really need more analysis of the short term hit to the Russian economy. The sanctions seem impressive but what will this mean to everyday Russians now?
I think at this point no-one knows. Least of all the Russian Government.
At a guess, some things will vanish from the shelves in short order. Inflation will zoom. Smuggling will be a boom industry.
The real question, to me, is about the secondary effects - how long before the loss of imports hits Russian manufacturing and infrastructure... and *everything* starts vanishing...
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
This does not sound good. https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1501531157510426625 The only electrical grid supplying the Chornobyl NPP and all its nuclear facilities occupied by Russian army is damaged. CNPP lost all electric supply. I call on the international community to urgently demand Russia to cease fire and allow repair units to restore power supply 1/2 Reserve diesel generators have a 48-hour capacity to power the Chornobyl NPP. After that, cooling systems of the storage facility for spent nuclear fuel will stop, making radiation leaks imminent. Putin’s barbaric war puts entire Europe in danger. He must stop it immediately! 2/2
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
For sure. Although neither your first point about having a distorted view of the war and preferring to believe in their national myths, nor your second point about not having a cold look at their historical aggression, are unique to Russia.
Indeed. There is a comparison with Britain. The "Britain alone in 1940" myth for one. Ask Polish airmen. Or those nations which were then part of the Empire.
That's ridiculous. It isn't a myth. Of course, there were combatants from the Empire/Commonwealth and displaced folk from defeated countries made a very significant contribution - they are justly celebrated - but Britain was very largely fighting on her own until Hitler attacked the USSR and the USA entered the war.
In WW2, the British army peaked at 2.9m men, the Indian army alone peaked at 2.5m.
Dismissing the contribution of the Empire and Commonwealth as mere combatants whilst we were fighting on our own is pretty shameful.
I am aware of that. But the Indian Army was, largely, in India. No?
It did, of course, contribute significantly to the defeat of Japan and was active elsewhere. But it was not in a position to do all that much while the Battle of Britain raged.
It's a broadbrush statement, but Britain did stand alone for a period of time during WW2. And its not "pretty shameful" to remind ourselves of that fact.
No, it was spread over the globe far and wide, places like Iraq, Malaya, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Singapore. There were also Indian Army forces fighting in France and evacuated from Dunkirk.
Oh really? I thought it was just us v Germany, like 1966. Things one learns on PB.
The only way to win in this debate is not to play, but what a silly post. It is a boringly straightforward truth that for a time in 1940 Britain was largely alone in actively (or even passively) fighting Germany.
And I think there is something a bit G.A.Henty about your own mental warscape of loyal young fellows from all four corners of the empire rallying to the cause, hurrah. Did anything happen in 1947 which adds nuance to this picture?
I bet the almost 200k Poles who made strenuous efforts to get to the UK when it 'stood alone' felt totes validated by 1945.
Didn't the Canadian Army start disembarking in the UK in December 1939?
Just discovered the lodestar of awful R4 comedies, Angstrom, a satire on Nordic noir and the like; canned laughter, extreme mugging, rotten genre-based puns crowbarred in at every opportunity, it had the lot. Even made me switch off the radio which I'm usually too lazy to do even when Baw Jaws is given yet another opportunity to declaim.
*ON TOPIC What to do when you corner a rat, and in turns on you? Just stamp on its head till it goes squish. Drown it in a bucket. Pick it up by its tail, wave it’s head against wall. And then go and get your rabies jabs asap.
I don't really know why one would want to corner a rat, unless one is a sadist. It's not an efficient extermination method to corner individual rats.
I had pet rats as a child. They are really delightful and charming animals and I am finding this whole discussion rather horrible!
Was it called Basil? Did it end up in the Ratatouille 😝
I guess you could say same about humans, we know some humans are really quite delightful and charming - but would you say that about Putin - so I was only talking about the bad ones.
I love little piggy’s, look soooooo cute
Baby rhino are very similar to baby pigs - just larger.
According to the Nepalese Ghurkas who were looking after the ones I met, they stay cute until the horns grow. Then they become permanently truculent.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't it FDR preferring to listen to Stalin than Churchill which led to forces going NW rather than NE from the top of Italy?
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Without having the UK as a base for the US to launch D Day from Stalin could have taken much of NW Europe too, not just NE Europe before the Allies got there or the Nazis would have kept western Europe and the Allies would have been unable to liberate France and got bogged down in Italy
Mrs C, I believe that gender was recently added to some equality legislation, which strongly implies that all preceding matters were of sex (ie genetics/biology rather than perspective).
However, that would then raise the obvious point of what happens when biology and someone's view of themselves are in contradiction.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
Off topic - hearing about fuel rationing. Anyone else hearing the same thing?
For vehicles or ...?
Was told to fill my car up by someone who is well connected.
I posted this earlier on this thread:
“Oil and gold. Yummy.
Top Tip of the Week: fill up every petrol/fuel tank/container/receptacle you can lay you mucky hands on. To the brim. The ride hasn’t even begun yet..”
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
In a way, yes.
But in a way, no.
Putin's regime has spent two decades demolishing press freedoms in Russia. The media has slowly become the regime's mouthpiece - or else. Therefore much of the Russian public is fed Putin's worldview, and not any opposing view.
The situation is what it is. People are protesting against Putin's regime, but they are a minority. Even if it is a significant minority, it is still a minority. There are deeper nationalist forces at play. It feels a bit like China 3 decades ago and Tiannamen Square - a country decisively moving in one direction. Of course we have sympathy for the 'losers' in such a scenario, but it shouldn't impact on how we view the threat from the regime.
There are big differences, though. China wasn't prosecuting a war of aggression which it was in danger of losing. Nor was its economy collapsing as a result of western sanctions. And there was no real opposition within the existing state structure (Navalny and his followers).
FWIW I was reading the comments of a British expat working out in Russia (who is keeping his head down and hoping to stay out there) on another forum; his take is that there is tremendous support for Putin amongst Russians, based on their proud nationalism and obsession with WWII as great as ours. He reckons that when the truth (about the casualties and lack of military success) finally reaches Russians, rather than blame Putin they'll mostly blame the West, and we'll be in a new cold war.
The stories Russians tell themselves about WW2 are not entirely in keeping with the facts are they, though. They ignore their alliance with Nazi Germany, their provision of material to the Nazis at a time when Britain was fighting Germany and British pilots were being killed by them, their carve up of Poland and wholesale slaughter of Polish officers and others, their aggression to Finland and the Baltic States, the appalling treatment they meted out to returning Russian prisoners of war, the wholesale rapes of German women and the atrocities they then inflicted on the countries they occupied. Oh and the huge amount of military hardware they received from the Allies to help them fight.
And they won't learn it because telling the truth in Russia is dangerous, historical inquiry into and access to archives is banned and they prefer to believe in national myths rather than take a good hard look at themselves. Yes Russia has been horribly invaded. But it has also been a horribly aggressive country at least as often. Ask the Poles, for instance.
I mostly agree, save for one part. Given what the Germans did in the Soviet Union, it was inevitable that the Red Army would take savage revenge when they invaded the Reich. We (by which I mean the Western Allies) suffered less, but we still took brutal revenge on both Germany and Japan.
There were a lot of stories about Russia in WW2 which only came to light in the 1990s when the archives were opened.
A relevant example is that the number of Soviet deaths during the winter war turned out to be between 50k and 100k higher than had been claimed for the previous 50 years.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
I do think that whatever verbal assurances were given by Genscher, Major, Hurd or whoever to the Soviet Union in 1990, are superseded by the treaty signed between NATO and Russia in 1997, which explicitly allows any country to join NATO.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
I don't follow you. I'm citing Gorbachev's statement in the interview in the same post: "To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."
I accept that I was overstating it by calling it a guarantee, but continue to think that Gorbachev (and, more relevantly, most Russians) think it was a violation of the spirit of the assurances.
As others have said, Poland and others were free to apply to join NATO anyway, since they weren't party to the assurances. But we were free to decline, since agreeing breached the spirit of our assurances.
One can develop two alternative histories if we had declined: that it would have led to Putin invading them, or that it would have led to a peaceful Europe and no Putin. We can't prove it either way, but I don't think we can blithely disclaim any responsibility. I note that nobody has disputed my other points about our assistance in establishing the Russian kleptocracy.
Apologies for asnyone wanting to continue the discussion, but I need to sign off for a while - I've taken a day off to finish a Danish translation - but I've put my view for what it's worth. I'll try to catch up later on.
We really need more analysis of the short term hit to the Russian economy. The sanctions seem impressive but what will this mean to everyday Russians now?
This long but excellent thread is helpful. Explains how Russia works as a mafia state, menacing others, and lying to itself
‘Let's discuss Russian economy. Many underestimate its dependency upon technological import. Russia's so deeply integrated into Western technological chains that severing these ties will lead to its collapse. Sanctions are already effective and can be made even more efficient🧵’
Much to chew on, but the economic takeaway is that Russia is fucked. What little machinery and tech it does produce is reliant on western (and Chinese) components. It will become seriously poor rather quickly. They might not even be able to maintain oil and gas production
Also makes the point that, as a mafia state reliant on the threat of violence, the Ukraine war was a rational act. It had worked before. But Putin underestimated the western reaction, Ukrainian resistance - and believed the lies told him, about the state of his own army
Comments
Off topic - hearing about fuel rationing. Anyone else hearing the same thing?
After SpaceX supplied Starlink terminals to Ukraine and switched the system on in Ukraine, Dimitri Rogozin (fuckwit in charge of fucking up Russian space technology) complained that SpaceX is supplying Starlink to Ukraine and he questions why a “purely civilian” operation like SpaceX would do that.
Inflation needs to be brought under control by the Chancellor so interest rates don't rise too much and thus avoid hitting those with mortgages too hard.
However on the political point, remember in 1997 Blair even won over 65s as well as every age group below.
So if the Tories keep most over 65s they would still avoid a defeat as bad as 1997
Tony Diver@Tony_DiverExtinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security. 🙃
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1501501090570940418
But any action they take won’t improve support for their cause. It’ll push people into the opposite camp.
US assessment is interesting, most notably, "US estimates of Russian military assets lost or inoperable range as high as 8-10 percent- close to double the estimate last week as US has gathered more information" with Ukraine suffering a similar percentage loss. Russia's early invasion forces in some areas will be hitting up to 30% losses, effectively putting them out of action, and as 100% of Russia's pre-staged forces are in, there's no immediate replacements available.
Russia has probably crossed that fateful line already, or is close to doing so unless it stops soon
The 2m refugees already fled from Ukraine will want their vengeance, the west is likely to agree, I see no medium term future for Russia other than isolation, impoverishment and vassalage under China
Now can we please do something about Patel and the ridiculous obstruction of refugees.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
The only way to win in this debate is not to play, but what a silly post. It is a boringly straightforward truth that for a time in 1940 Britain was largely alone in actively (or even passively) fighting Germany.
And I think there is something a bit G.A.Henty about your own mental warscape of loyal young fellows from all four corners of the empire rallying to the cause, hurrah. Did anything happen in 1947 which adds nuance to this picture?
Has Putin and the Russians felt "encircled"? Difficult and not for me to say without an examination of the situation in eastern Europe these past few decades. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
But in that time the West has aggressively targeted sovereign nations and invaded them because it could. Are Tony Blair and Dubya war criminals? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
This is absolutely and categorically not to excuse what is happening now in Ukraine but Putin has learned from the best as to how to conduct operations which satisfy domestic concerns with scant regard for international opinion.
Who remembers the failed heliborne assault on Hostomel airport? The Hinds fell like tears in the rain. Those were the days.
Indeed what is the point of Patel - expect her to go in an early summer reshuffle
Edit: I am not a million miles off saluting your indefatifability.
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
I know who I believe.
Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.
The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."
Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c203
Wagner Assis
@wagnerassis_
Grain traders should be allowed to drink at work at this point
https://twitter.com/wagnerassis_/status/1501266726549442566
Anyway, now bored with this.
In the case of Russia, we let them do their thing, largely.
Indeed arguably economically at least China was moving closer to the West after the Hong Kong handover and under Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao than Russia ever did under any Russian President, even Yeltsin and Gorbachev
It's a fun time.
Thanks for the header.
(Update: b***** internet running 4 minutes fast)
Lab 41% (-1)
Con 34% (nc)
LD 9% (nc)
SNP 5% (+1)
Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
Would they be happier today if they were not members of NATO?
Normally catch it in a trap and shoot it with an air pistol.
Or take it into the corner of a sack and use a priest. *
Drowning it in a bucket is probably illegal, or that is the case with squirrels. Here's a chap who was fined £1500 for doing so back in 2010:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/187946/1-500-cruelty-fine-for-man-who-drowned-a-squirrel
* Priest:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_(tool)
London is a global city and it and its environs will always have high demand. Interest rates also affect those most with big mortgages, not those who can buy outright or largely mortgage free as moving up the chain or benefit from assistance or inheritance from their family who already own their own homes
London
LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South
LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales
LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North
LD 3% (5th)
Scotland
LD 2% (joint 5th)
It has been a complete and utter disaster that have not been seen in Russia since 1917. It has been the worst two weeks in my life. I now completely understand the feelings of people who survived the revolution of 1917 when the entire life (and the future) is unravelling....
...I am not a political activist, (i.e. I do not participate in meetings at the risk of detention and do not post any anti-war slogans on my FB page), so I am afraid that I do not deserve any praise. Moreover, as most of the Russian educated middle class, I am thinking of emigrating from Russia if the possibility opens up, so if you or your colleagues or your clients are hiring, please let me know).
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
SSSCIP Ukraine
@dsszzi
Update on Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant:
750 kV ChNPP - Kyiv high-voltage line is currently disconnected due to the damage caused by the occupiers.
As a result, the Chernobyl station and all nuclear facilities in the Exclusion Zone are without electricity.
About 20,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the spent nuclear fuel storage facility-1. They need constant cooling. Which is possible only if there is electricity. If it is not there, the pumps will not cool. As a result, the temperature in the holding pools will increase.
After that evaporation will occur, that will lead to nuclear discharge.
The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe.
In addition, there is no ventilation inside the facility.
All personnel there will receive a dangerous dose of radiation.
The fire extinguishing system also does not work, and this is a huge risk of fire caused by shelling.
The fight still goes on making it impossible to carry out repairs and restore power.
I guess you could say same about humans, we know some humans are really quite delightful and charming - but would you say that about Putin - so I was only talking about the bad ones.
I love little piggy’s, look soooooo cute
Starmer did a good job on Johnson. Listening to BJ's cod churchill 6th q reply I think he was expecting a whole 6 questions statesmanlike agreement
At a guess, some things will vanish from the shelves in short order. Inflation will zoom. Smuggling will be a boom industry.
The real question, to me, is about the secondary effects - how long before the loss of imports hits Russian manufacturing and infrastructure... and *everything* starts vanishing...
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1501531157510426625
The only electrical grid supplying the Chornobyl NPP and all its nuclear facilities occupied by Russian army is damaged. CNPP lost all electric supply. I call on the international community to urgently demand Russia to cease fire and allow repair units to restore power supply 1/2
Reserve diesel generators have a 48-hour capacity to power the Chornobyl NPP. After that, cooling systems of the storage facility for spent nuclear fuel will stop, making radiation leaks imminent. Putin’s barbaric war puts entire Europe in danger. He must stop it immediately! 2/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfCwLHOHUPY
Not sure the last Labour government isn't past its sell-by date, mind.
According to the Nepalese Ghurkas who were looking after the ones I met, they stay cute until the horns grow. Then they become permanently truculent.
Don't remember the Good Samaritan being motivated by enlightened self-interest
Pig Dog rattled
Whereabouts on gov.uk can it be found?
What could you rely on in court as per the actual law?
Expect huge talk about this. And little practical action.
Wordle 263 6/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨🟩🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
However, that would then raise the obvious point of what happens when biology and someone's view of themselves are in contradiction.
“Oil and gold. Yummy.
Top Tip of the Week: fill up every petrol/fuel tank/container/receptacle you can lay you mucky hands on. To the brim. The ride hasn’t even begun yet..”
A relevant example is that the number of Soviet deaths during the winter war turned out to be between 50k and 100k higher than had been claimed for the previous 50 years.
Genuine question.
I accept that I was overstating it by calling it a guarantee, but continue to think that Gorbachev (and, more relevantly, most Russians) think it was a violation of the spirit of the assurances.
As others have said, Poland and others were free to apply to join NATO anyway, since they weren't party to the assurances. But we were free to decline, since agreeing breached the spirit of our assurances.
One can develop two alternative histories if we had declined: that it would have led to Putin invading them, or that it would have led to a peaceful Europe and no Putin. We can't prove it either way, but I don't think we can blithely disclaim any responsibility. I note that nobody has disputed my other points about our assistance in establishing the Russian kleptocracy.
Apologies for asnyone wanting to continue the discussion, but I need to sign off for a while - I've taken a day off to finish a Danish translation - but I've put my view for what it's worth. I'll try to catch up later on.
Two weeks today Rishi is to provide a 'wartime' budget and expect help on energy costs
‘Let's discuss Russian economy. Many underestimate its dependency upon technological import. Russia's so deeply integrated into Western technological chains that severing these ties will lead to its collapse. Sanctions are already effective and can be made even more efficient🧵’
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501360272442896388?s=21
Much to chew on, but the economic takeaway is that Russia is fucked. What little machinery and tech it does produce is reliant on western (and Chinese) components. It will become seriously poor rather quickly. They might not even be able to maintain oil and gas production
Also makes the point that, as a mafia state reliant on the threat of violence, the Ukraine war was a rational act. It had worked before. But Putin underestimated the western reaction, Ukrainian resistance - and believed the lies told him, about the state of his own army
Wordle 263 3/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩